[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Letters to the Editor for Dec. 3, 2021: Will the discourse shift from division to unity? Richmond.com
At times, you might have been forgiven for thinking that oral arguments over the Dobbs case were being held before the Health and Human Services Committee of the Pennsylvania state Senate, or some other legislative body.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involving Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, is, of course, the most consequential abortion case to reach the Supreme Court in decades. The arguments on Wednesday, as you would expect, featured plenty of intricate legal discussion about precedent and the like. They also delved at length into questions of policymaking that aren’t rightly in the ambit of the Supreme Court — and that the court never should have taken on in Roe and Casey, the abortion cases that are on the verge of collapse owing to their manifest constitutional shabbiness.
Indeed, the otherwise fascinating, substantive and wide-ranging discussion was relatively light on what is the supposed source of a constitutional right to abortion. The advocates opposed to the Mississippi law located it somewhere in the 14th Amendment, even though, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out, no one at the time of the Amendment’s passage believed it guaranteed a sweeping right to abortion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor even said at one point that the Supreme Court comes up with decisions all the time that aren’t directly grounded in the Constitution. This is a line of argument that, if taken seriously, would justify the Supreme Court swinging free of all restraint and rewriting the nation’s laws on the fly.
Which is precisely what the court did in Roe and Casey.
In 1973 and again in 1992, the court made the mistake of thinking that it should be the arbiter of a fraught social and moral issue, and essentially crafted an abortion policy for the entire nation without any democratic input. Because the outcome — namely a prohibition on nearly all meaningful restrictions on abortion — is to the liking of abortion rights advocates, they have become invested in the notion that Supreme Court precedent, even bad precedent, should stay on the books forevermore. One of the more jaw-dropping moments of the arguments was when Alito nearly cornered Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar into maintaining that it would have been a mistake for the Supreme Court to overturn its hideous pro-segregation decision in Plessy v. Ferguson too soon.
The conservative justices and the abortion rights advocates went back and forth on where the Supreme Court should draw the line on allowing restrictions on abortions. Prelogar and Julie Rickelman, a lawyer representing the Mississippi abortion clinic in the case, insisted that it should be at fetal viability, around 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. Why? Because that’s where the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has drawn the line to this point (although with loopholes that still allow some post-viability abortions). But this raises the question of whether the court was right to draw the line there in the first place.
Rickelman added that the line of viability is “objectively verifiable and doesn’t delve into philosophical questions about when life begins.” This is in doubt, though. Some premature babies have survived after being born at 21 weeks, and many abortion rights advocates deny that unborn babies have any moral standing at any point in a pregnancy.
Sotomayor said that believing an unborn baby has a right to be protected under law is a religious view. If so, why does the Supreme Court get to impose its “religious view” that the state can protect a fetus after 24 weeks but not before? She and her colleagues sit on the highest court in the land, not the Sanhedrin.
Drawing the line at viability, it was made clear during the arguments, is wholly arbitrary.
Alito highlighted this arbitrariness when he asked: If abortion advocates believe there’s a women’s liberty interest in having access to the procedure, why does that interest suddenly end at the line of viability? By the same token, why does a fetus have less of an interest in having its life protected prior to viability than after it?
Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know why drawing the line at 15 weeks, as Mississippi wants to, rather than at viability would be so damaging, since it falls well short of a total ban on an abortion.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted near the end of the arguments that there is no good way to balance the liberty interest of women and the fetal interest in life — one or the other gives way, no matter where you draw the line at any particular point in time. In the absence of a right to abortion in the Constitution, let alone guidance in the document about how specifically to arbitrate a bitterly divided moral and political question, he suggested that the court should remain neutral and let the people’s representatives take up the question.
This is the right answer. If the Supreme Court significantly erodes Roe and Casey or overturns them in its Dobbs decision next year, elected bodies will have more authority over abortion than they have had in 50 years. Some will agree with Prelogar and Rickelman on the policy; others with Mississippi’s Solicitor General Scott Stewart, who argued the state’s case. Many will be somewhere in between.
The initial political reaction to overturning Roe and Casey would be thermonuclear, and it’s easy to see elected Republicans, who have no discernible post-Roe strategy, set on their back heels. The fallout from the Court’s moving against Roe is the foreseeable event that has the greatest potential to affect the trajectory of the midterm elections next year.
On the other hand, in the bluest states, where voters are most supportive of abortion rights, nothing would change in the post-Roe world. Red states would move to restrict abortion, but there’s a good chance that these measures would be popular locally. Would they anger and motivate voters in the blue states? Maybe. But Democrat Terry McAuliffe got nowhere trying to use the Texas abortion law as a political cudgel on the Virginia gubernatorial candidate race last month; few voters really believed Richmond was going to follow Austin’s lead.
It could be, then, that the decentralized nature of the American system — with various state legislatures working their will in a messy patchwork befitting a vast, diverse continental nation — comes up with an arrangement on abortion that is broadly acceptable to most people, if not necessarily morally or logically coherent.
That may not be satisfying to either side, but it would be more democratic and sensible than looking to nine justices to, in their wisdom, dictate a policy from on high.
This has been a big win for the Duchess of Sussex, as the appeal court has upheld her claim against the Mail on Sunday for publishing parts of a private letter to her father.
It allows her to put down a strong marker over her privacy - and the slam-dunk ruling allows her to avoid any awkward cross-examination as a witness.
"This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what is right," was Meghan's response, after her win over a news industry that she says "conditions people to be cruel".
It's part press statement and part manifesto, as she rails against a type of media that "rewards chaos over truth".
There might be some champagne cracked open in the Californian winter sunshine, because Meghan's success vindicates a high-risk strategy.
Previous generations of royals might have been horrified at the idea of having their private messages read out in a courtroom or being picked apart for embarrassing headlines in the witness box.
But in this dispute about the publication of a letter from a daughter to a father, the judges focused on the letter of the law, rather than other billowing issues about the royals and the media.
The appeal court's confirmation that this had been a breach of the duchess' privacy means that even if her life is inescapably of public interest, it doesn't make her public property.
But it's come with some bruising headlines. There was much publicity around her apology for having not remembered information briefed to authors writing a book about her and Prince Harry.
The judges describe this as "at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory". This might have been an uncomfortable insight, but it had no bearing on the fundamental issues of the privacy case.
The newspaper's publisher, Associated Newspapers, says an appeal to the Supreme Court is being considered, arguing that a judgment should only have been given on "evidence tested at trial".
The publisher challenged the lack of cross-examination of evidence, when it said issues had been raised about the credibility of the duchess.
Rather than a breach of privacy, the publisher said its stories addressed issues of public interest surrounding the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan.
Meghan sharply divides opinion and even with this legal win that's likely to continue.
Her supporters will see it as evidence that she really has been unfairly treated by a hostile press. While her detractors might continue to view the court case through the prism of a narcissistic attempt to control her image.
Social media will still be a snake pit on both sides.
But the court case did shed some unexpected light on Prince Harry and Meghan's world in the months after their wedding in 2018 - in the documents published alongside.
Emails, texts and statements suggested a couple under siege.
There was relentless press interest; Prince Harry was under "significant pressure" from his family about Thomas Markle talking to the media; Meghan had no "secure means of communication" with her father, and she worried about her mother's safety from "egregious paps".
She described her "personal styling" as being "the only thing I seem to still have any control over".
The exchanges between Meghan and her communications secretary Jason Knauf showed the extreme detail that went into planning her letter to her father, down to structuring the sentences so no page could be reproduced without showing it ran on to the next.
The emails were also a reminder that this wasn't a usual PR relationship, with Meghan addressed as "Hi Ma'am".
Prince Harry appeared in the email chains using a lot of exclamation marks and sounding indignant and protective on his wife's behalf, warning of "vile" attacks and "cyberbullying on a different scale" and wanting to "get some truths out there".
Meghan's iPhone e-mail sign-off was: "Please excuse all technological mishaps. I'm a Luddite." But she comes across as highly focused and intensely self-aware about the modern media.
This courtroom battle will add another layer to Meghan's complicated relationship with the British public.
What began as an enthusiastic welcome for a breath of fresh air, changed into something like the way Yoko Ono was treated for supposedly breaking up the Beatles.
The public has its own expectations of royals. They might not mind titles, but they bridle at entitlement.
YouGov polling shows a slump in Meghan's popularity over the past year. In autumn 2020, 40% of people in this UK tracking survey had a positive opinion of her, but that had fallen to 28% in autumn 2021, with Prince Andrew the only royal with worse approval ratings.
But when the YouGov poll is broken down into age groups the Duchess of Sussex is one of the most popular royals for younger people, more so than the Duchess of Cambridge or Prince Charles.
There's a chasm in attitudes towards Meghan and it shows what an asset she could have been to a royal family needing more diversity and wanting to reach younger generations.
Her more recent campaigns, such as lobbying over parental leave rights in the US, might have connected with this socially-aware generation.
Instead her claims in her Oprah interview about the royal family and the colour of the baby she was expecting - when she said there were comments about "how dark his skin might be" - have continued to fizzle like a sulphurous firework that won't go out.
Meghan, now aged 40 and a mother of two, looked relaxed and at home on the Ellen chat show circuit last month, in a Californian TV studio with celeb-friendly questions, a long way from courts and courtiers.
There could be a chance to write a new chapter, more on her own terms. But even though the privacy ruling will be a warning signal, the media and public interest in this famous couple is not going to go away.
Please Support Local Advertisers
As we enter our end-of-year fundraising campaign, I thought it might be a good idea over the next few weeks to describe some of the work that goes on behind the scenes at the Ipswich Local News.
Getting a newspaper out takes the work of many people. But before I introduce all of them, I thought I’d explain what is in the paper and why you see it.
One frequent criticism that comes my way are questions that go along the lines of, “Why did you print that rubbish?” These complaints usually relate to a letter someone wrote. They are often followed with the accusation that we are right/left wing in outlook.
It’s important to keep in mind that there are two very distinct parts in any newspaper. One is for news, which should be free of opinion or bias.
Please Support Local Advertisers
The other part of the paper is for opinions. That may or may not be free of facts (or news).
At the Ipswich Local News, we differentiate by running a black bar across the top of the opinion pages and labeling items as “columns” or “letters.”
Myself and the staff don’t necessarily agree with these opinion pieces. In fact, we often disagree. But we realize it is our duty to run them to facilitate debate and expose ourselves and others to different viewpoints.
On the whole, I enjoy this, and the letters pages have always been my favorite part of the newspaper.
However, I have to confess that I found the whole thing unpleasant during the last presidential election. I see no reason to believe it will be any better the next time around. But we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
At the Ipswich Local News, we try to steer a course down the middle. We’ll present the facts and let the readers make up their minds. Others may feel compelled to say something — look at Bialek Park, for example — but that doesn’t mean we agree. Our job is to tell the story, and we’ll leave it to our columnists and letter writers to try to change minds.
In coming weeks, I’ll introduce some of the people in the operation. In the meantime, you can support the Ipswich Local News by sending a check to PO Box 183, Ipswich, MA 01938, or by donating online at www.ipswichlocalnews.com/donate.
During this fund drive, you donation will be matched dollar for dollar by NewsMatch. And, since you are contributing to a non-profit, your contribution will be tax deductible.
This year, we can unlock up to $13,000 in matching grants. Please help us in making this happen.
John P. Muldoon
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Opinion | Fears About the Future of Abortion The New York Times
I am so very stupid. Well, at least I did a stupid thing and the sad part about it is that I knew it wasn't the brightest thing to do just before I did it. I broke my old-age golden rule, that being, "Think about the potential consequences of what I'm about to do before I do it." Consider what might go wrong because, if there is one chance in a million something could go awry, well, in my life and with my poor luck, that one in a million thing will be the penalty for my poor judgment.
As I have often alluded to, I enjoy taking long walks on the nearby golf course. I stroll, accompanied solely by my trusty seven hybrid or pitching wedge. I absorb as much of the early morning or late evening sun's warmth as I can, all the while also getting in a little practice. It is normally a win-win situation.
Also and once more, as I have oft alluded to, I look for stray, lonely lost golf balls. These spherical delights come in a variety of colors, and I find special delight in discovering any which I find to have a particularly unique and/or odd hue. Those balls which can profess to be of some scarcity have an almost overpowering allure.
Well, the other day and in the morning, I went for a walk with my old and comfortable seven hybrid golf club. It was a beautiful morning and, as I walked and occasionally sent the ball 150 or so yards, there was certainly no indication of the scenario that was lurking later that day.
As I stood on the number seven hole's tee box, everything seemed just right for a good shot. There was little or no breeze, the ball was sitting exactly as I wanted and the water in the pond -- well, I really needn't concern myself with that and I said, "what pond, what water?" But then I noticed something, something round and of a color that looked to be pastel blue.
My thoughts returned to the issue in question and a good swing and proper ball flight produced a good shot. I watched as the ball landed and stopped on the left side of the green. The golfer in me was pleased but then the ball hunter in me considered something else: "What about that pastel blue ball?
I walked to the edge of the body of water and yes, there it was, at the base of the pond's small island, a pastel blue golf ball. In fact, there were several balls visible in the vicinity of the blue golf ball. I knew I couldn't reach the prize, so I decided to return later in the day with my golf ball retriever, a long telescoping pole with a small metal basket on one end.
Some of the day's hours passed and, in the late afternoon, I once again walked to the course, this time with the ball-getter in hand. I made my way down a slope, through some mud, and to the edge of the island. Once there, I easily retrieved one blue, one yellow, and several white golf balls. Before calling it a successful venture, I scanned the edge of the pond and, sure enough, there were another four or five orphaned balls near the water.
I couldn't allow those poor lost souls to spend another night alone, so I extricated myself from the watery depression in the ground and walked alongside a small stream of water that I needed to cross. I could have walked another thirty or so feet to a small bridge, but I decided to gracefully skip over the water which was then covered with fallen autumn leaves. I skipped, but with little or no grace, and fell into the slippery mud on the far side of the stream.
There was one word which almost immediately came into my brain. No, the word was not, "stupid." That was the second word that made its way into my mind. The first word, and one which over the years I have come to know so very well, was "ouch." That word only surfaces following the sensation of pain and this time the pain was originating in the ring finger of my right hand.
Apparently, and to break my fall, the fingers of my right hand had been sandwiched between the ground and the metal shaft of the ball retriever. I never fully fell to the ground so there was little or no cleanup. After assessing the injury, and checking myself over, I decided that I couldn't leave without those other balls, so I easily, and without further incident, got them.
That night the ring finger of my right hand pained me terribly and turned a particularly dark shade of purple. The swollen finger was obviously damaged, and I began to ponder the question, "Had I broken that finger?" For all the seventy-two years spent on this earth, I had yet to break a bone.
On the morning of the next day, I in a very casual manner mentioned the previous day's painful lesson to my son who in turn mentioned it to his wife, my daughter-in-law, Chris. Chris is a nurse and always looks at things from that perspective. I suppose that's only natural. I, on the other hand, try my best to avoid any and all contact with doctors and hospitals. By the way, Chris makes great cookies.
Anyway, Chris said I would be foolish if I didn't go to a medical facility and have a doctor look at the forlorn finger. I wanted to disregard her recommendation, but I feared I would be making yet another foolish decision. So, that afternoon, I traveled some distance to one of those so-called "Urgent Care Centers." After some time registering, getting some X-rays of the finger in question and waiting in a far too warm room, I met the doctor. His diagnosis: There didn't appear to be a break and he referred to the damage as a "severe strain." I paid the co-payment and left somewhat relieved yet a little put out as I recalled Chris' advice.
If anyone would like to call her and express your opinion regarding her strongly-worded guidance, her telephone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Now, come on, you didn't really think I was going to give you her real number, did you?
But wait. I received a call early the following morning from a young lady who said she worked at the urgent care center. She asked if I was Stan Fine, and I said, "Yes." "Well, there is a new development with the X-rays we took yesterday.
"Oh, and what might that development be?"
"Sometime after you left the office, the radiologist looked at the X-rays and said you have a small fracture where the finger meets the hand. I can give you the name and number of a specialist if you like."
"Go ahead," I said.
After rattling off a name and number, the woman asked, "Do you have any questions?"
"How bad does the radiologist think it is," I asked.
"Not very bad. A piece of the bone flaked off. If it were me, I'd tape the finger to the little finger for just a few days."
"Okay, thanks."
So, I took her advice and taped the two fingers together. It looks kind of funny and makes combing my hair challenging, but I guess I'll get through it. After all, it's just one little finger and it will soon be healed; won't it?
I've always been somewhat ambidextrous -- you know, possessing some proficiency with either hand. And boy has that ability come in handy after my misadventure. As nonessential as that ring finger protruding from my right hand may have been, it sure seemed that it came into use more often than I might have guessed. But then, one learns to adapt. And, adapt I am now quite involuntarily compelled to do.
I sometimes wonder, do you all ever get tired of hearing about the many misadventures in my life. Then I think about the more painful side of that question. Well, I'm the one living that haphazard adventure.
Stan Fine is a retired police officer and Verizon Security Department investigator who, after retiring in 2006, moved from Tampa, Fla., to Noel. Stan's connection to Noel can be traced back to his grandparents who lived most of their lives there. Stan began writing after the passing of his wife Robin in 2013. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
The Discourse is just tickled to be a finalist for 11 Canadian Online Publishing Awards — the most of any media outlet. These national awards recognize the best in digital publishing and online community news, an incredible recognition for a small independent media outlet like ours.
“I’m overwhelmed and astounded,” says Jacqueline Ronson, founding reporter for The Discourse Cowichan. “It’s a tribute to our tiny team’s hard work and dedication that we’re able to punch above our weight in national competitions.
“When I look back at these stories, what I see is our reporters’ absolute commitment to putting community service at the forefront of everything we do. It brings me joy to see that people looking in from outside can recognize that, too.”
As a team working hard to provide meaningful local news, we are proud of the breadth of these nominations. We earned recognition for the best feel-good stories, best investigative journalism, best virtual event, best multi-cultural stories, best community news website, best photojournalism and more.
We couldn’t do this without the support of our communities. Our readers’ wise words, gentle feedback and uplifting encouragement are so fundamental to our work. We cannot offer enough thanks and gratitude to everyone who helps lift us up.
We’re already looking forward to the awards ceremony, which will take place in February next year.
Check out the full list of our nominations:
It takes a village to build a community news website that is beautiful, functional and full of excellent local news and information. On this, the team behind The Discourse Cowichan has set the bar and continues to raise it. The digital local news model built by this team now inspires countless independent journalism start-ups in Canada and beyond. Our website was developed and is maintained by our other sister organization, Indiegraf.
Making Rent: A solutions series on rental affordability in Nanaimo, is a finalist for its deep look at housing issues in the city, and their potential solutions. The work even caught the attention of then-MP Paul Manly, who joined lead reporter Julie Chadwick for a virtual community conversation. So many staff and freelancers contributed to making this series awesome, including Lauren Kaljur, Julie Chadwick, Rae-Anne Guenther, Hilary Eastmure and David Owen Rama.
Shalu Mehta leads empathic and in-depth coverage of issues in the West Shore communities of Greater Victoria. Shalu’s weekly email newsletter is like a community newspaper, reimagined for the digital age. And her investigations, including the deep-dive on a conflict over a gravel quarry in the Highlands, offer context and build understanding on complex local issues.
Of all our work in 2021, none has brought in quite as much positive community feedback as Jared Qwustenuxun Williams’s three-part series on the Coast Salish food systems of the past and present. (Here’s where you can find Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.) We were so happy to be able to help share this valuable series, which Qwustenuxun calls a short version of the book he’ll someday write.
When a rainbow crosswalk was defaced outside a Royal Bay school, many news outlets focused on the hateful act. But reporter Shalu Mehta instead covered the response: how a community came together with love and understanding to repair the damage. It’s a true feel-good story with real impact: it spreads love in the face of hate.
This article by Jacqueline Ronson spotlights the reFRESH marketplace, a community program that saves food from grocery stores that might otherwise go to waste and uses it to support Cowichan Valley families in need. We just love this kind of story — the kind that uplifts good work while also letting people know about valuable community resources.
Philip McLachlan’s photography brings The Discourse’s community journalism to life. From community events to demonstrations to breaking news, Philip has an eye for how to visually tell a story. We’re not at all surprised that his work is already turning so many heads.
Since our early days in the community, our team has covered efforts to establish and maintain a women’s shelter in Cowichan. Reporter David Minkow has followed this issue through struggle and triumph. His reporting shows how, through the program, women have found health, stability and a sense of home. The Cowichan Women Against Violence Society (CWAV) credits The Discourse’s reporting, in part, for helping to find a new home for the shelter.
It’s not often that The Discourse beats the other local news outlets on breaking news. But when no one else had the Saturday morning update on a wildfire burning on Mount Prevost, reporters Jacqueline Ronson and Philip McLachlan jumped into action, and got the news out to the community. What takes this story to the next level, though, is the amazing photo that Philip captured of firefighters jumping from a plane into the fire. It was the first time that smokejumpers had ever come to Vancouver Island, and Philip was there to capture the moment in local history.
When reporters at The Discourse latch onto a story, they go deep. Nowhere is that more true than in this five-part series by Shalu Mehta on the fight between a community and a rock quarry operation in the Highlands. (Here’s Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5.) Instead of getting lost in the conflict, Shalu reveals complexity while pointing to solutions. It’s this kind of in-depth community reporting on which The Discourse prides itself.
When the pandemic nearly derailed the 2021 International Women’s Day ceremony, The Discourse stepped up to host a virtual version of the annual event. The event’s success is a testament to the strength of our community relationships and partnerships. The moving ceremony featured a keynote interview with Audrey George, manager of the Ts’i’ts’uwatul’ Lelum assisted living facility in Duncan. Poets Délani Valin and Carla Stein read original poetry celebrating essential workers. We were honoured to play a small part in lifting their voices.
THANK YOU to our community of support — a million times. The Discourse just hit a record-setting 700 supporters. We couldn’t have done it without you. Here’s to an even bigger and more ambitious 2022.
